Is there any plans to include Pwr:HR ratio in future versions?
Is there any plans to include Pwr:HR ratio in future versions?
To be honest…I really doubt it…
TrainerRoad works from power data and power data only as it is a truly objective measure. Heart Rate is so subjective and variable as a measurement tool that it is frankly just unreliable to use as a measure. By all means track heart rate over time and use it for general trends, but to train from heart rate when you already have good power data is not needed. If you do not have power data, then sure heart rate can be used, but it won’t be nearly as accurate and objective as power data.
That’s true but that would be awesome to see the response of the body during the last interval or during the the race for a giving period and see how body is doing with fatique. Effort vs Power …
Highly unlikely to happen when you see the TR response to about any HR related question on here.
I’d say that heart rate is only useful for estimating VO2max (Garmin/Firstbeat algorithms) during steady state efforts or for monitoring general health/mood/fitness. And of course, it’s fun to see the numbers and graphs.
TrainerRoad is not about any of these matters. I wouldn’t want them to waste energy on developing them and competing with Firstbeat either.
Low glycogen, general fatigue, high heat, sickness, bad bike fit, bad mood, dehydration… Everything affects heart rate.
I think will see Variability Index way before pwr:hr… Still dont get why no VI if in the average podcast it’s mentioned at least once
I did once have a convo with the support team about other metrics when the calendar was in beta and their answer was basically “for TR to remain a beginner friendly all-in-one training solution.”
I agree but if you think that we mostly train in the same environment such as same trainer, same room temperature, no wind, etc. it would be nice to see the improvement of VO2Max and other metrics on same type of workouts
I specifically requested VI earlier this year and was told they don’t plan to add it. I agree on the ironic reply since the guys use it in various podcasts. I find it a useful metric.
This line of logic has never resonated properly with me. Sure power data is object measure of work being performed. However, it does little to objectively measure the stress being put on the various systems being employed to generate it.
Tracking HR against power output is probably the best–if not only–objective way to measure actual fitness gains. HR is a reflection of how well your internal systems are able to respond to the work that you want them to do. If a clutch on your car is slipping a little, sure, you can rev the motor higher to make sure the power is being transmitted to the wheels to achieve a desired speed. However, you could potentially be doing significant damage to the motor and and connected systems by doing so.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a subscriber to training with power; but I also think it’s nonsense to suggest that HR should not be considered. Minor variations can probably be ignored, but significant ones should be heeded and explored for potential causes
I totally agree. HR+Power will give a better estimate of the form on a steady state pace such as time trails and long climbs.
Directly from Joe Friel’s article on TP
Heart rate-based training has been around about 30 years. Power-based training is somewhat newer having arrived on the scene some 20 years ago. Speed-distances devices which measure pace have been around about 10 years. Heart rate is a good way of measuring how the workout felt; it’s a proxy for effort. We can think of this as “input.” Power and pace tell us what was accomplished in the workout or race. This is “output.” When input and output are compared we have an excellent way of measuring changes in fitness. “Efficiency Factor” and “Decoupling” use this relationship to tell us how fitness is progressing.
The article can be found at https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/efficiency-factor-and-decoupling/
Has never resonated with me either :o)
I have just started on the “Sweet Spot Base Mid Volume II” after finishing the “Sweet Spot Base Mid Voume I”.
On Saturday I completed the “Kaweah” (5x10min at threshold). In order to do this, I ended up doing 18 out of the total 50 minutes in my heart rate red-zone: +90% bpm = +164 bpm with max bpm at 182. Going over 165 for that long is a challenge for me (I turn 60 next year!) and I most certaintly accumulate lactic acid by doing so (therefor the high puls). However, I completed it.
Next day I did the “Geiger +2” which consists of 5x12 minutes in Sweet Spot range. Of the total sixty minutes I spent 19 minutes in my heartrate red-zone, again building high levels of lactic accumulation in muscles already “burned” (as the TR long goes), from the day before - and extremely short breaks at three minutes. I was somewhat proud that I actually completed this ride.
Then, I had to do the “Gendarme +3” on Tuesday, which is 2x20 minutes of 30/20’s at 120% of FTP. I have done similar rides likes this before (I actually constructed one myself before I could find this type on TR a while ago, after reading Tylor Hamiltons book, where he describes 40/20’s) and I believe I should be able to complete this workout. However, I couldn’t complete it. I had to stop after the first 15 30/20’s and take longer breaks after that so that I skipped three and rode the next three, etc.
My point here is, that without paying notice to the heartrate bpm’s, I would have no explanation for my shortcommings, having over-challenged my aerobic system with 18 and 19 minutes in my heartrate red-zone on the preceding rides and a much higher lactic build-up than what the rides were indicated by TR to accumulate.
Coming from track & field (400m hurdles) in my youth, I would train in my heartrate red-zone with intense lactic build-up three times in a row in four days. NEVER!
And this points to another consequence of the TR tunnel-vision on “Watts only heartrate ignorance”: poor workout design especially when adding workouts to longer term plans. The influence of the actually body efforts on preceding rides are ignored and every ride is considered new and fresh, since the Watts look surmountable by themselves. As an example of this the breaks are very short on most rides and they never vary - like progressively getting longer during the ride. No way, Jose, training stress is something you LEARN to cope with, as the ride explanation often goes in TR - as if it has nothing to do with current shape and form which could be measured by … hmmmm, maybe … heartrate?
No, no, God forbid - just TEACH those muscles so they UNDERSTAND what to do when they are half-way up the Tourmalet six months later. Maybe my muscles are just not that intelligent :o)
Kind regards Per :o)
I use heartrate as a guide as well and I think us older riders (66) need to be extra careful because my power zones do not match my heart rate zones. I am constantly above 90% once I am getting into threshold and above. Sweetspot is probably the highest I should go if looking at heart rate.
Towards the end of a sweetspot session my heart rate is around 90% of my max heart rate (164) which I have to estimate because of the ectopic beats I am getting which can push my heart rate over 190-200 at times.
Thanks for respons and reflections, Skulbow :o)
You make a very good point, which I had not given much consideration, about the skewed relation between heartrate and watt-based power zones as we grow older - e.g. my max puls was 230 bpm when I was in my twenties. So we simply have less to work with when we get older.
And that brings me back to my point, that we need some kind of individual measurement of the ACTUAL effect of the effort - because it varies. It varies as a result of current shape, preceding rides, mental stress factors, and, as you point out, age. However, this is no argument for NOT measuring, as TR would claim, but actually an argument for doing so.
I then realise that exhaustion based oxygen breathing equipment (whatever it is called) is more accurate than heartrate measurement. However, I cannot afford that kind of equipment at home. So I will have to do with heartrate :o)
On a practical note, I adjust the FTP value according to form in order to compensate for TR rides that are simply too hard and unforgiving by design, especially when put together on subsequent rides in a plan, as I described.
Though my highest FTP measure was 277 this fall I now ride on 260, after starting out on 255 when I began my indoor winter training on TR. I guess I will have to go back on 255 again - damned it :o)))
Kind regards Per :o)
I think VI is a very important metric. It’s one of many reasons I will keep my TrainingPeaks account. Trainer Road is for working out. TP is for looking at it.
personally as a labeled time-trialist ive gotten over the fact I cant see VI within TR,
the only thing I miss having not renewed my TP is power PR by minute badges and the 1/2/3 best within year or all-time kinda thing